[longpig]

What do you think? Please vote and comment.

[KaiserJeep]

I think something traumatic happened to her when she went to a drunken party and got drunk herself. I think she has no clear memory of the event, never had one, and has no idea of who it was that had sex with her, or whether she consented - and she probably did, and regretted that from that time forward. I believe that the Democrats used her faulty memory to manufacture an entirely defective opposition to a new SCOTUS justice candidate whoom they object to for political reasons.

I think that nothing should have been said unless there was objective evidence to support her claims, that qualifies under all rules as legal and sufficient for a conviction for a criminal offense. Those standards exist for good and sufficient reasons.

[Newfie]

KJ pretty much nails it. It not as simple as the poll would suggest.

[Plantagenet]

This is no longer about Ms. Ford or even about Judge Kavanaugh. This is about how we are going to run our government and our society going forward.

If the Ds (or anyone else) can gin up horrible but totally unsupportable and unprovable claims about a person, and those unsubstantiated claims are considered to be cause to not hire or even fire someone, then one of the basic freedoms of the United States will be lost.

If society decides that we should always and automatically believe the woman in a case like this, and automatically not believe the man, then one of basic freedoms will be lost.

If the Ds succeed in smearing this man, then anyone can be smeared, and one of our basic freedoms will be lost.

If the media succeeds in smearing this mean, then they can smear anyone, and one of our basic freedoms will be lost.

OK---I went hyperbolic.

But I watched this happen in the universities. Under the Obama administration Title 9 was twisted to set up entirely new extra-judicial proceedings where young men could be "tried" by Deans and College Affirmative Action officials based solely on the say-so of a woman. The men were denied due process, there was no jury, there often was no evidence or the only evidence that counted was what the women said.

Now I'm seeing this same kind of "special" proceeding being used on a national stage, and I think its dangerous and nothing more then a revolting circus orchestrated by the Ds in cahoots with the MSM to smear a good man. This has turned into a "show trial" where false accusations are used to destroy a good man.

Cheers!


Judge Brent Kavanaugh must feel like he's storming the beach on D-Day and under heavy fire from the Nazis Ds.

[KaiserJeep]

Would the one person (so far) who said they believe her please tell us why?

[Plantagenet]

The WSJ reports that after interviewing dozens of people they are unable to verify any part of Ms. Swetnicks accounts of weekly drug-and-gang-bang parties involving her and Judge Kavanaugh back when she was in college and Judge Kavanaugh was in High School.

wsj-cant-corroborate-kavanaugh-accusers-gang-bang-account-after-dozens-contacted

I didn't believe Ms. Swetnick, and I don't believe Ms. Ford either. The Ds will do anything to stop Kavanaugh from getting on the SCOTUS, including lying and defaming innocent people. The Ds want our system to change from one where people are innocent until proven guilty to one where people are automatically assumed to be guilty when a woman makes an accusation of sexual harassment or sexual assault. But this is madness--- women are just as capable of lying as anyone else.

Cheers!

[careinke]

I think she told an untruth, but I believe she believes she did not lie. So, if you believe you are telling the truth, but you are not, is that really telling a lie?

[Cog]

Here memory loss is rather convenient for her story. No location, no time, no date, none of the people she mentioned being there corroborate her story, no memory of how she got there and how she got home. What is there about this allegation that I should I believe? There is zero evidence it ever happened.